Maybe the President should never travel anywhere. We've got him set up to work at home. Let him stay there. Let people visit him. Maybe the occasional truly momentous summit, but basically, work from home, President.

44 comments:

How much did the death of American soldiers attaked and killed from the surrounding mountains while sitting in an a valley outpost in the Afghan no-where areas next the Pakistan nowhere areas cost? Being a professional narcissist with no plan is not the style of Commander-in-chief that those men needed.

From the article: "A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour. The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.

At those rates, the president's 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million."

Don't forget, Michelle took another jumbo jet earlier to the event. What did it cost the taxpayers to fly her ass over there?

My objection was to the imprudence, as I see it, to the Copenhagen trip. The fact that the President and his family and entourage cost a lot of money to ferry about and protect is not their fault, provided they don't abuse the service.

For example, I think the criticism by some of the President going on vacation, or going to Camp David, or going out on the town, because of the expense of his travel and protection, is wrong. The President is entitled to vacations, nights out on the town, and time away on the weekend.

(And since I don't like most of what he aims to do with his work time, I'm happy as a clam to have him go on vacation as much as possible; just as I'd happily pay Congress more to go on recess. It'd be a bargain!)

Having Air Force One fly (supposedly) empty over New York City for a photo-shoot (if that's what it was)? No, that's not okay. I have a suspicion there is much more to that story, and maybe it's exculpatory, but I harbor the suspicion it was just a bone-head move.

The president was in a no-win situation with the Olympics bid. He's getting a lot of negative feedback only because the Chicago bid was unsuccessful. Imagine what his critics would have said if he didn't make the effort and Chicago still lost!

For example, I think the criticism by some of the President going on vacation, or going to Camp David, or going out on the town, because of the expense of his travel and protection, is wrong.

Agree. I always found the pictures on the golf course and the moralizing irritating. Of course, whether going to this Olympics thing was a good idea is a separate question. And I'm not sure why Michelle took a separate plane. And did the government fly Oprah there? That doesn't make any sense.

At those rates, the president's 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million."

Don't forget, Michelle took another jumbo jet earlier to the event. What did it cost the taxpayers to fly her ass over there?

Michelle flew over with her entourage in a converted Boeing 757. That isn't exactly an economy plane. If the plane cost "only" $10,000 an hour (likely a very low estimate when you factor in the crew costs, maintenance costs, etc), then her flying separately cost about $140,000 over and above the cost of flying BO.

In addition, whenever a president flies somewhere in AF1, at least one military transport plane is also needed to carry the presidential limo or helicopter used for local travel. Add to that the need to send security teams ahead before the president leaves. This goes for all presidental travel regardless of who is in the office. For that reason, presidental travel should be for necessary purposes, not ego trips.

As for meeting with his general, before last Friday, he had one video conference since appointing the general last April. In the age of easy and secure video conferencing, Obama can meet with his generals any time with almost no lead time or cost. The equipment needed for the video conferences already exists. Obama only needs to use it.

In addition, whenever a president flies somewhere in AF1, at least one military transport plane is also needed to carry the presidential limo or helicopter used for local travel. Add to that the need to send security teams ahead before the president leaves. This goes for all presidental travel regardless of who is in the office. For that reason, presidental travel should be for necessary purposes, not ego trips.

I think the more time he spends out of the cesspool of DC, the better.

Well considering he's about as much of the DC establishment as the rest, I don't see what benefit that has.

Its one thing to spend the taxpayer qwan on travel that is meaningful. I think the objection here is 1) is it really the job of the President of the USA to be the pitchman for getting an Olympic bid? and 2) Was it really necessary for Her Royal Highness to be flown seperately on the taxpayer dime?

I mean with all the bullshit about carbon footprints being shoved down my throat this sorta rubs me the wrong way.

Keeping it a secret kept the pundits away. Being able to operate out of the media spotlight is a good thing.

In the age of easy and secure video conferencing

Videoconferencing is no substitute for being able to look people in the eye. But I could get behind keeping Congress at home, responsive to their voters, using video conferencing for the few times they actually meet during the year.

This "talking to the guy down the hall" business, or even eating a meal with people, is seriously overrated when you can just open your take out lunch together simultaneously over the internet.

Videoconferencing is no substitute for being able to look people in the eye. But I could get behind keeping Congress at home, responsive to their voters, using video conferencing for the few times they actually meet during the year.

For a REMF (now days called a FOBBIT), FLS is very insightful here.

For some things, only a face to face meetiung works. The military does use a lot of VTC, but nothing can replace the ability of the commander to look a subordinate in the eye when issuing an order and getting the acknowledgement and an upcheck on the capability to complete the order. look at the eyes, sweaty palms. the gut check vibes. all are integral to giving and receiving orders that mean men will die in its completion.

serious stuff, and that is the nature of a face to face meeting between the POTUS and a field commander. Been that way since before the Romans...

The POTUS needs those meetings, I only question why it didn't happen when he appointed the guy...

The military does use a lot of VTC, but nothing can replace the ability of the commander to look a subordinate in the eye when issuing an order and getting the acknowledgement and an upcheck on the capability to complete the order. look at the eyes, sweaty palms. the gut check vibes. all are integral to giving and receiving orders that mean men will die in its completion.

serious stuff, and that is the nature of a face to face meeting between the POTUS and a field commander. Been that way since before the Romans...

There's teleconferencing and then there's what's available at the White House. Simple teleconferencing like DCO Connent allows for sharing computer screens and voice communications. However, high end teleconferencing allows you to look people in the eye. The White House has very high end communications gear for good reason along with the highest priority on military satellite communications. Depending on face-to-face communications is too slow.

traditionalguy said... How much did the death of American soldiers attaked and killed from the surrounding mountains while sitting in an a valley outpost in the Afghan no-where areas next the Pakistan nowhere areas cost?

For now, the troops are still dying in Afghanistan, and getting maimed (something the only death counts crowd always ignores) - because there is still a continuation of the Bush policy.

That we are gladly there and dying to help the Noble Democracy-hungry Freedom Lovers!! of Pashtunland...And eventually the ever-grateful Muslims will learn to savor and cherish each American they kill or mutilate for helping them realize their better interests!Honest! And of course the Dems painted themselves in a corner ever since John Kerry started the meme that Iraq was the Bad War, Afghanistan the Wonderful War to give the magnificent Afghan freedom lovers their Freedom!!! - and to "find bin Laden and give him his ACLU attorneys..

The cost? For each death? 150K to near a million in training, 250K in death bennies, 15K-to a million or so in VA bennies to serviceman's families.

Drill SGT - The military does use a lot of VTC, but nothing can replace the ability of the commander to look a subordinate in the eye when issuing an order and getting the acknowledgement and an upcheck on the capability to complete the order. look at the eyes, sweaty palms. the gut check vibes. all are integral to giving and receiving orders that mean men will die in its completion.

serious stuff, and that is the nature of a face to face meeting between the POTUS and a field commander. Been that way since before the Romans...

There is a world of difference between a Colonel grilling a direct report Captain who in turn had just gotten a full briefing from his sargeants and 2nd Lieutenant - and some mystical ability for a lawyer who never served gaining full insight and knowledge from a General. Or a mano a mano meeting with 6 Global Warming PhDs on the nuances of the latest computer models...

Presidents shouldn't pursue executive decisions like that. At best, McChystal sould be one of 100 people whose advice Obama's Administration weighs...and then only for tactics and present needs he says are waiting for filling - in order to do his mission.

The better Presidents, even those with Commanding Officer experience or high military office background (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon) tended to realize their own military experience was narrow...and their proper focus was on diplomacy, broad brush strategy formed by a host of military and non-military advisors, academics, statesmen, and monitoring what the military said it could do to see if they could do it with a prudent level of resources....

Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton did well to follow Nixon's advice to them.. and FDR & Truman's pattern and avoid "eyeball to eyeball" talks with field commanders. Truman dumped MacArthur not because of some magical face-to-face discovery by "military expert Truman" about military flaws in MacArthur...but because MacArthur thought he could buck a strategy formed by hundreds back home and buck his Chain of Command.

And we have had disasters where someone with limited military experience fancies himself as a military expert who wants those eyeball to eyeball meetings to best decide what tactics and battles are next and how those battles must be fought with his personal micromanagement.

A big believer in the personal hands on approach was a WWI war hero corporal. It didn't go well for him....

And or such huge believers in face-to-face field commander insights while pursuing a disastrous overall strategy as LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Dubya, and undoubtedly the "expert in all military matters" based on suffering as a POW...JOhn McCain. (Thank God we didn't elect that genius micromanager of military matters..!!)

The best thing Obama could do is ask Clinton and Bush I to tell him what Nixon told them on on national security strategy and conflict management...and what Truman & George Marshall & Keenan amongst hundreds of strategist told Nixon..

I have little doubt what Nixon and Truman would have said about Bush's beloved Noble Iraqi and Afghan Freedom Lovers.

"Afghan and Iraqi Freedom Lovers!!....well...fuck 'em!" "If they love Freedom!! so much let them earn it themselves." "Otherwise it's just a fools errand and a bloodletting of US lives and treasure..what are our vital interests??"

The Houston Examiner did a rough calculation of the carbon footprint. The trip was the carbon equivalent of 430 American families' carbon output for a YEAR.Link: (Sorry it's so long)http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m10d2-Calculating-the-carbon-footprint-of-President-Obamas-Olympics-trip

And we have had disasters where someone with limited military experience fancies himself as a military expert who wants those eyeball to eyeball meetings to best decide what tactics and battles are next and how those battles must be fought with his personal micromanagementYou mean Lincoln, '61-'63?

The personnel costs have to be paid anyway. What are the additional costs incurred by the trip? How many AF1 towels were filtched?

And we have had disasters where someone with limited military experience fancies himself as a military expert who wants those eyeball to eyeball meetings to best decide what tactics and battles are next and how those battles must be fought with his personal micromanagement

You mean Lincoln, '61-'63?

No, Lincoln had enough military experience to know that actually fighting was preferable to doing nothing. Fort McCellan (now closed, I think) was named for one of the generals Lincoln fired for ineptitude. It seems fitting that Fort McCellan was in Alabama, a state more than willing to honor a useless northern general.

No, a better example of a self-proclaimed military expert who micro-managed a war was Lyndon Johnson (with his moron SecDef McNamara). Johnson bragged that "they can't bomb an outhouse without my say so." If you want to know how to fight and perhaps win a war, study what LBJ did and do the exact opposite.

Another "winner" in this category was the godawful Jimmy Carter. He was a terrible commander in chief. I know - I was in the military at the time. He sucked like a black hole.